Bernie Sanders to Democrats: This Is What a Radical Foreign Policy Looks Like

ill

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,234
Reputation
397
Daps
17,297
Reppin
Mother Russia & Greater Israel
Bernie Sanders To Democrats: This Is What a Radical Foreign Policy Looks Like

“Many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, here in the Senate, for example, disparage the United Nations,” he says, sitting across the table from me, in front of a wall of Vermont tourism posters. “While clearly the United Nations could be more effective, it is imperative that we strengthen international institutions, because at the end of the day, while it may not be sexy, it may not be glamorous, it may not allow for great soundbites, simply the idea … of people coming together and talking and arguing is a lot better than countries going to war.”

I ask him how such rhetoric differs from past statements in defense of the U.N. and of international cooperation offered by leading Democrats, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

“Excuse me.” Sanders doesn’t like to be interrupted. “Let me just talk a little bit about where I want to go.”

The senator makes clear that “unilateralism, the belief that we can simply overthrow governments that we don’t want, that has got to be re-examined.” After referencing the Iraq War — “one of the great foreign policy blunders in the history of this country” — the senator touches on another historic blunder which, to his credit, few of his fellow senators would be willing to discuss, let alone critique. “In 1953, the United States, with the British, overthrew [Mohammed] Mossadegh, the prime minister of Iran – and this was to benefit British oil interests,” he reminds me. “The result was the shah came into power, who was a very ruthless man, and the result of that was that we had the Iranian Revolution, which takes us to where we are right now.”


Speaks on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, overthrowing dictators, etc.
 

intra vires

Glory to Michigan
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,132
Reputation
1,535
Daps
14,757
Reppin
The Catholepistemiad
If it's not us, it's someone else.

Deal with it.

Empty words of a pseudo intellectual.

This has nothing to do with your first ignorant statement.
  • Putin's toy would push to erode America's credibility globally.
  • Using multilateralism instead of unilateralism bolsters the American position.
  • Multilateralism doesn't not even concede hegemony/unipolarity.
    • However, it does prevent other nations from desiring to balance against you.
      • Which is something that could end it.
Hillary herself is a proponent of multilaterism. Based on your logic that makes her Putin's puppet as well.

So again, do you ever know what you're talking about?

That's rhetorical by the way. The answer is not unless someone else tweeted it first.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,539
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,803
Reppin
The Deep State
Empty words of a pseudo intellectual.

This has nothing to do with your first ignorant statement.
  • Putin's toy would push to erode America's credibility globally.
  • Using multilateralism instead of unilateralism bolsters the American position.
  • Multilateralism doesn't not even concede hegemony/unipolarity.
    • However, it does prevent other nations from desiring to balance against you.
      • Which is something that could end it.
Hillary herself is a proponent of multilaterism. Based on your logic that makes her Putin's puppet as well.

So again, do you ever know what you're talking about?

That's rhetorical by the way. The answer is not unless someone else tweeted it first.
Bernie is anti American power. It’s a non-starter for me.

But hey you started this exchange by calling me a jingoist so you set the tone for the disrespect i’ll bring to this discussion in the near future.
 

intra vires

Glory to Michigan
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,132
Reputation
1,535
Daps
14,757
Reppin
The Catholepistemiad
Bernie is anti American power. It’s a non-starter for me.

But hey you started this exchange by calling me a jingoist so you set the tone for the disrespect i’ll bring to this discussion in the near future.

You have a perverse and antiquated definition of American power.

Your posts about international relations and foreign policy have demonstrated your jingoism. I merely labeled your positions with the word that best fits. Turn your outrage inward.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the tone of your posts. I'm only interested in the truth of them. Judging by the Iran thread there won't be much of that in them.

I welcome you to surprise me.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,539
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,803
Reppin
The Deep State
You have a perverse and antiquated definition of American power.

Your posts about international relations and foreign policy have demonstrated your jingoism. I merely labeled your positions with the word that best fits. Turn your outrage inward.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the tone of your posts. I'm only interested in the truth of them. Judging by the Iran thread there won't be much of that in them.

I welcome you to surprise me.
If the Iran thread confuses you so much, maybe you are unqualified to discuss the nuances and duplicity of diplomacy and geopolitics.
 

intra vires

Glory to Michigan
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,132
Reputation
1,535
Daps
14,757
Reppin
The Catholepistemiad
If the Iran thread confuses you so much, maybe you are unqualified to discuss the nuances and duplicity of diplomacy and geopolitics.

The Iran thread shouldn’t confuse anyone, it’s about bad actors creating a pretext for war. Bush-43’s Administration did that with Iraq and Trump’s Regime is looking to do the same with Iran. Though, if people are perplexed as to why a so called "pragmatic" Democrat, who claims to understand geopolitics, is pushing for a ruinous neocon foreign policy agenda, that would be understandable.

However, Iran is not specifically what our exchange is about. It was merely the latest example of your flawed way of thinking. So, let’s not filibuster with that, we can talk about the specifics of Iran in that thread after this discussion concludes.

Anything else? Or was that your way conceding you don’t want to have this conversation? It’s fine if you don’t, I don’t care either way.
 
Top